D Development Paradigm

[Dan]

Walter Bright Wrote:

> Jesse Phillips wrote:
> > I would like to point out string, which was very much detested, but it is 
> > finally here. However string is not just an alias to char[] and it is not 
> > the String class that was wanted, but instead an alias to a const(char[]) 
> > something useful in the face of const I suppose.
> 
> I'll often resist an idea because the existing implementations in other 
> languages suck. I'd rather delay implementing it until a non-sucking 
> design can be found. C++ const is a classic example of that. C++ const 
> is a first generation design, and has two crippling shortcomings: no 
> invariant, and no transitivity.
> 
> C++ const was leading edge technology when it was designed, but it's 
> obsolete today.
> 
> Only time will tell if D's const sucks or not :-)

Yeah D, supposedly being an improvement on C++, needs to be at least a little better than C++ for any given feature.  It won't be perfect, but it'll certainly be *better*

One day I'm most certain we'll all be standing around gawking at the suckiness of D.  Walter's task here is to be the one delaying that day.  He's doing a superb job of it.

People bitch about the way Linus rejects things because he just flames people.  Walter defends the current state with logical arguments and one feels almost goaded (sp?) into coming up with something better.

Regards,
Dan